Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: Harold Tuttle on April 08, 2010, 08:29:55 AM
-
Va. man acquitted of indecent exposure in his home
FAIRFAX, Va. (AP) — A man charged with indecent exposure after two women said they saw him naked inside his own home was acquitted Wednesday by a Virginia jury.
Erick Williamson, 29, has argued since his October arrest that he should not be punished for being naked in the privacy of his own home.
Police and prosecutors, as well as the two women who testified against him, said he intended to expose himself and made no attempt to conceal himself in a residential neighborhood filled with children.
"It's really a weight off my shoulders after these last six months," Williamson said after his acquittal. "I think (the verdict) kind of sets the record straight. It was an innocent action."
In December, a judge in Fairfax County's General District Court convicted Williamson of misdemeanor indecent exposure, but imposed neither jail time nor a fine. Still, Williamson appealed his case to the county's circuit court, risking a maximum punishment of a year in jail to clear his name.
"When you know you've done nothing wrong, it's hard to take these kind of accusations and not stand up to it," said Williamson, an out-of-work commercial diver who racked up thousands of dollars in legal fees.
At the time of his arrest, Williamson was sharing a home in Springfield with other commercial divers. He testified Wednesday that his roommates had gone to work and left him alone in the house for the first time in months. He was moving out, and decided to pack his belongings and make breakfast in the nude.
Two women testified that they saw him naked that morning. The first, a school librarian, said she heard a loud moan and drunken singing. Then, as she drove by Williamson's house at about 6:40 a.m., she saw him in the buff and called 911.
A police officer came by the house, saw nothing unusual and left.
Then, two hours later, Yvette Dean testified that she was walking her 7-year-old son to school when she saw a naked Williamson standing in an exterior doorway on the side of his home with the screen door wide open.
Dean testified that she made eye contact, angrily gave him the finger and hustled her son away. As she turned the corner, she looked back and saw Williamson from a front window, again completely naked.
Williamson did not dispute that the women may have seen him, but said he did not see them and did not make eye contact with Dean. He testified that if he had known he'd been seen, he would have put his pants on and gone outside and apologized.
Under Virginia law, indecent exposure occurs when a person intentionally makes an obscene display of his or her private parts. The law does not necessarily require the exposure to be in a public place — it allows for prosecution when the exposure occurs in a "place where others are present."
Prosecutor Marc Birnbaum said the circumstances of the case, from the librarian's testimony about loud moaning and drunken singing to Dean's testimony about eye contact, showed that Williamson intended to expose himself.
"This isn't a case about being naked in your house. This is a case about intentional exposure," Birnbaum said.
-
I guess they don't like gladiator movies either.
-
I wish I could remember that old joke about a neighbor complaining about the indecent exposure on the other side of the fence and the retort inquiry about how far she had to crane her neck to see it.
Thinking back, the account from the article seems quite different than the accounts I remember hearing at the time of the arrest.
-
the women in this case should be forced to change there last names to Kravitz [popcorn] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gladys_Kravitz) oh and maybe buy the slobs some curtains :laugh:
-
Can you post the linky so I can post about it on FB? >:D
-
http://www.google.com/search?q=Va.+man+acquitted+of+indecent+exposure+in+his+home pick one :P
=D
-
So when are they going to prosecute the "victims" for peeping? :P
-
Really happy to hear of the appeal verdict. Virginia had recently changed it's indecent exposure law to prevent folks in certain situations (having to stop on the side of the road to pee being the most oft-cited issue during the General Assembly hearings & debate) being arrested and being placed on the sex offender registry for acts where the exposure was not intentional nor salascious.
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-387 § 18.2-387. Indecent exposure.
Every person who intentionally makes an obscene display or exposure of his person, or the private parts thereof, in any public place, or in any place where others are present, or procures another to so expose himself, shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. No person shall be deemed to be in violation of this section for breastfeeding a child in any public place or any place where others are present.
(Code 1950, § 18.1-236; 1960, c. 233; 1975, cc. 14, 15; 1994, c. 398.)
The original reports of the "offense" had the woman & child walking down a side path/walkway which involved trespassing on his property. Hopefully that was addressed during the appeal trial.
stay safe.
skidmark
-
Stopping alongside the road to pee is so comman in MT that people don't even bother to camoflage what they are doing. =)
Once, I saw a young woman walk around around to the back of a high ground clearance pickup and squat. She was well below bumper level :O
-
While working in the Queen's DA office I looked outside the window to see a man in a suit stop, turn, and then start urinating onto the road.
I think it may have been that exact moment I decided I didn't want to work in the city.
-
So when are they going to prosecute the "victims" for peeping?
It sounds like the peepers were women. Women are never sexual predators, only sexual victims.
-
i seem to remember a news story about a rapist, a few women, and some vegetables that goes counter to that [tinfoil]
-
What a jerk. Either keep the doors/windows shut, or keep your pants on.
Moron. Criminal moron. ;/
And yes, I also want laws against sagging jeans that expose underpants. Flame away.
-
What a jerk. Either keep the doors/windows shut, or keep your pants on. Moron. Criminal moron. ;/
And yes, I also want laws against sagging jeans that expose underpants. Flame away.
I'll walk around stark nekkid in my house and you can't stop me. All who "observed" him had to trespass onto his property, walk along a hedge-lined walkway (hedge on outside of walkway screening the path) and stick their noses where they did not belong.
Yeah, if he had been standing in front of his picture window with the shades/blinds open, where anybody going down the street could see him, then he's a jerk and maybe even a criminal.
You might find this http://www.arrowfastener.com/products/hammer_tackers/79055000532/ useful re: sagging pants. Says it's good for upholstery.
stay safe.
skidmark
-
it is a might peculiar that 2 different women saw him hours apart. and that one claimed he stood in the door
-
It sounds like the peepers were women. Women are never sexual predators, only sexual victims.
My experience at the juvinile prison contradicts your assertion.
-
I think that was sarcasm on his part...
-
it is a might peculiar that 2 different women saw him hours apart. and that one claimed he stood in the door
AFAIK he was standing in his door. However, that door (side door) was next to a private wlkway protected from view from the street by a hedge. Lady #2 & her spawn trespassed to take a shortcut & thus observed him. Had they stayed off private property and not breached his expectation of privacy there would have been no incident.
Of course women & children are "special classes" and deserve protection even when they are the cause of their travail.
stay safe.
skidmark
-
AFAIK he was standing in his door. However, that door (side door) was next to a private wlkway protected from view from the street by a hedge. Lady #2 & her spawn trespassed to take a shortcut & thus observed him. Had they stayed off private property and not breached his expectation of privacy there would have been no incident.
Previous claims that L2 was trespassing were unconvincing. If the case is as you say, I reconsider. What about lady # 1?
What I object to in the case is the idea that exposing yourself to the public is legal, with the fig leaf excuse of "I was inside my house." If he had an expectation of privacy, then I see your point.
-
where does it say the ppl were trespassing? anyway, guy should keep his shades down, the only ppl ?I approve of running around naked are 20 something women
-
Are you really saying one does not have an expectation of privacy in your own home? ???
-
Are you really saying one does not have an expectation of privacy in your own home? ???
Not if you're displaying yourself through a door or window, while nude, where the public can see you. There is of course no expectation of privacy in that situation, home or not.
If he wasn't doing that, then yeah, more power to him.
-
So, unless you have blackout curtains installed, that are always closed, and/or live behind a tall fence you are a criminal for walking around nekkid? /shakes head
-
So, unless you have blackout curtains installed, that are always closed, and/or live behind a tall fence you are a criminal for walking around nekkid? /shakes head
Nobody said anything like that, but if you enjoy having conversations with yourself, go right ahead.
'Though it is entirely possible that there are forum members who keep themselves invisible to me. What have I been missing all these years? :O
-
Not if you're displaying yourself through a door or window, while nude, where the public can see you. There is of course no expectation of privacy in that situation, home or not.
So what you're saying is that if you're naked, and in a location you're visible to the public (for example, in your bedroom with the blinds open), this is indecent exposure?
it is a might peculiar that 2 different women saw him hours apart. and that one claimed he stood in the door
THe court didn't seem to buy it.
-
In every urban or suburban house and apt I've been in, the only way to prevent a member of the public, standing in a public thoroughfair, from seeing into your house was heavy curtains or solid blinds of some type. So given your contention, anyone who dares have their curtains pulled cannot be nude in their own home.
-
Heck, I'm naked most of the time I'm home. Not a pretty sight, I'll admit, but I'm good with it unless I happen to look in a mirror. Then I scare myself. :lol:
But the windows are covered in such a manner to eliminate the view to any passer-by. I don't want to be the cause of trauma -it'd not be neighborly.
-
now i know we're better off with the AI. [tinfoil]
-
So given your contention, anyone who dares have their curtains pulled cannot be nude in their own home.
So what you're saying is that if you're naked, and in a location you're visible to the public (for example, in your bedroom with the blinds open), this is indecent exposure?
.
Seems kinda obvious, don't it? I don't see why there is any debate here. ???
-
The reports I'm seeing now do not correspond very accurately with what was reported at the time of the (alleged) incident. In fact, it sounds a bit as though the (alleged) "victim" may have embelleshed her story in the interim.
http://www.aolnews.com/story/eric-williams-charged-with-indecent/730688
http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/news/local/indecent-exposure-in-home-121809
This is from the second article, which reported his original conviction in December 2009:
All witnesses testified that Williamson never stepped outside his home and made no gestures. However, a judge said since Williamson was seen by more than one person over the course of several hours, the judge considered the behavior "indecent".
Another report from the time of the original arrest. In this version, the "victim" says she say him in an open door in the car port of his [own! private!] home.
http://www.wtop.com/?nid=25&sid=1790464
-
Seems kinda obvious, don't it? I don't see why there is any debate here. ???
Well. I could see an argument to prosecute a man who's standing on his balcony and waving his parts at the public. An argument.
To what extent, however, we agree with indecent exposure laws (I don't, and it's a whole different argument), their purpose should be to protect against 'sexual predators' who deliberately expose themselves to others. If I come out of the shower naked and a construction crew working on the roof of the house next door happens to somehow spot me, that's not the same thing as standing on your balcony and screaming LOOK AT ME I AM NAKED.
-
once is an accident twice separate folks hours apart?
-
To what extent, however, we agree with indecent exposure laws (I don't, and it's a whole different argument), their purpose should be to protect against 'sexual predators' who deliberately expose themselves to others. If I come out of the shower naked and a construction crew working on the roof of the house next door happens to somehow spot me,...
Your scenario seems to include an expectation of privacy. If you've got that, nude away. (Wait, did I just say that? :facepalm: )
There's a glass storm door on the front of my house. Anyone on the street could see me, if I stood in front of it. No expectation of privacy there. If I nuded there, I'd expect I might get charged with indecent exposure or something. I would be deliberately (or at least carelessly) exposing myself to others. Not exactly sexual predation, but I don't see why the laws would be limited to that.
I admit, though, I'm no expert on the laws or precedents that cover that kind of thing.
-
So what do you believe a reasonable expectation of privacy would be? You have a right to privacy in your home, in rooms with no windows?
In any case, I remember having this argument the first time this came about. Obviously no one is getting persuaded so I think I'll just bow out.
-
the solution (http://www.gilafilms.com/Residential/window-film-Privacy-black.htm) =D, now who's going to pay for it? [popcorn] i love this stuff, it(and insulated curtains) makes a room pitch dark all day. great stuff if you have headaches. ;) oh it stinks a little for a few weeks(outside) if it's in direct sun. [tinfoil]
-
So what do you believe a reasonable expectation of privacy would be? You have a right to privacy in your home, in rooms with no windows?
In any case, I remember having this argument the first time this came about. Obviously no one is getting persuaded so I think I'll just bow out.
Might as well. You're not reading what I've said. ;/
-
Might as well. You're not reading what I've said. ;/
Disagreeing != not reading.
-
But disagreeing with things I clearly never said looks a great deal like not reading.
-
For example:
You have a right to privacy in your home, in rooms with no windows?
Of course not. You have a right to privacy in your home, when you are not in view or earshot of passers-by or neighbors.
It's very simple. If you are naked on your front lawn as your neighbors walk by on the sidewalk, you can't expect privacy. Just like if you stand in front a window where you have reason to believe they will see you. Having a roof over your head doesn't make it OK for you to be naked in public view.
How is this controversial?
-
It's the "Where they have reason to believe etc" bit I object to. Totality of circumstances of course.
-
??? I no understand.